3 ms·

A lot of this tbh is probably because of infighting between renewables and nuclear. Fusion seems like a bit of a black box to throw money into which isn't appr

A lot of this tbh is probably because of infighting between renewables and nuclear. Fusion seems like a bit of a black box to throw money into which isn't appreciated. Throw too little and you don't get there. Throw enough and you don't know when you'll get there. Fission solves a lot of problems but nobody likes it in their back yeard and some countries have gotten a scare of it (japan, germany,etc) It also takes a very long time to build a new planet and there's many people saying gov should invest more in solar/wind/etc instead whilst we're in a time where a lot of nuclear plants are reaching their planned life time or have had it extended for a long time. Hell I think only the UK is planning a new one which is sad to see.

TimPC 7y ago
Most renewables aren't viable for base load power. Nuclear is viable only for base load power. Realistically they are competing for different parts of the power utilization and shouldn't be infighting at all. You want nuclear for the amount of power that's always on the grid. You want renewables to be able to handle spiking. The hard part of renewables now is the unpredictable output from varying winds and levels of sunlight. The cost problem is solved. If someone could come up with a way to make renewables very consistent in power output they'd blow nuclear out of the water. One of the reasons hydroelectric is so effective is the amount of water going over a suitable waterfall has a viable minimum (it might sometimes increase after rains but even in dry periods it has a predictable power level).
- m0zg 7y ago
  Not sure why this was downvoted. It's the truth. The two don't (or at least shouldn't) really compete, they (and especially solar) are almost exactly complementary to each other.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    It's not the truth. The grid could be powered with no "base load sources" at all. Intermittent + dispatchable could cover everything.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  They are both competing for the "inflexible" part of the power supply. They step on each others toes, and do not work well together. A grid with a lot of renewables will have the price of power driven to near zero too often for nuclear to survive.

TimPC 7y ago

Most renewables aren't viable for base load power. Nuclear is viable only for base load power. Realistically they are competing for different parts of the power utilization and shouldn't be infighting at all. You want nuclear for the amount of power that's always on the grid. You want renewables to be able to handle spiking. The hard part of renewables now is the unpredictable output from varying winds and levels of sunlight. The cost problem is solved. If someone could come up with a way to make renewables very consistent in power output they'd blow nuclear out of the water. One of the reasons hydroelectric is so effective is the amount of water going over a suitable waterfall has a viable minimum (it might sometimes increase after rains but even in dry periods it has a predictable power level).

m0zg 7y ago
Not sure why this was downvoted. It's the truth. The two don't (or at least shouldn't) really compete, they (and especially solar) are almost exactly complementary to each other.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  It's not the truth. The grid could be powered with no "base load sources" at all. Intermittent + dispatchable could cover everything.
pfdietz 7y ago
They are both competing for the "inflexible" part of the power supply. They step on each others toes, and do not work well together. A grid with a lot of renewables will have the price of power driven to near zero too often for nuclear to survive.